# Kenneth L. Brown v. State > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · July 12, 2016 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4015221 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** July 12, 2016 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4015221 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous ## Opinion text Opinion issued July 12, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00357-CR ——————————— KENNETH L. BROWN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1389982 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Kenneth L. Brown, was found guilty by a jury of the felony offense of aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). Appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in the indictment resulting in an increased punishment range of twenty-five to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment upon conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2015). The jury assessed punishment at thirty-eight years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826– 2 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Attorney Bob Wicoff must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4015221. Public record. Not legal advice.